How laws are made in Great Britain

In Great Britain laws are made in
Parliament at Westminster. Its law-making status makes Parliament Great
Britain's main legislative body - though the Welsh
Assembly and the Scottish Parliament
do have legislative capabilities. However, it is difficult to
estimate what the impact of law making by the European Union will be in future
years. To date, most EU laws that have been imposed on the UK (and other members
off the EU) have concerned environmental issues. Some political parties in the UK, such as the UK
Independence Party, fear that the EU will broaden its net with regards to areas
where it will impose legislation. Time will tell.

In the UK there are five types of legislation considered by Parliament. These
are:

Government Bills

Private Members’ Bill

Private Bills

Hybrid Bills

Statutory Instruments

Government Bills embody government policy and a Minister introduces them. The
bulk of Parliament’s time is taken up with these types of bills. As the
current government has such a large parliamentary majority, it is almost certain
that all Government Bills will be passed into law (though some may be amended
along the way).

Individual MP’s from any political party (or a peer) can introduce a
Private Members Bill. These rarely have any chance of becoming law as too much
of Parliament’s time is taken up with Government bills. As a result of this,
Parliament gets little chance to discuss Private Members Bills, let alone vote
on them.

Private Bills are promoted by organisations that want specific powers. This
type of bill is introduced following a petition to Parliament by the
organisation that wants that bill to become law. These usually suffer the same
fate as Private Members Bills – timed out as a result of Parliament
concentrating on government bills.

Hybrid Bills are very rare. The government or backbenchers introduce them.
They are a mixture of private and public bills and come about if someone or some
people are going to be treated differently to others.

Statutory Instruments are rules made under powers contained in an Act of
Parliament. Because they come from primary legislation, they are sometimes known
as secondary legislation.

The idea for a new law can come from a variety of sources:

1) An election manifesto promise;
2) A government department after an election
has been won;
3) The influence of pressure groups;
4) The influence of experts
within their field;
5) In response to an EU directive.

Each parliamentary year, the Cabinet has to decide on what it wishes to do
regarding legislation that year. As such it has to prioritise what it wants –
though it has to be wary of promises made to the public at large. A
parliamentary session does not last for one calendar year. With extended
recesses, Parliament actually sits for a lot less than twelve months. Each
parliamentary year, the government has time for perhaps no more than twenty
major bills. As these absorb the bulk of Parliament’s time, there is little
time left for Private Members’ Bills etc.

Legislation in Parliament is driven by what is said in the Queen’s Speech
that traditionally opens Parliament in November. Once a decision has been taken
by the government to introduce whatever form of legislation it wants, a
potentially convoluted process takes place before the bill becomes law.

The first process is one of formulation. This is actually deciding what is
going to be contained in that bill. Both ministers and civil servants acting on
behalf of the government do this process. In fact, in many instances, the
details of a bill are left to experts within a civil service department who are
there to work for the government. Parliamentary Counsels (government lawyers)
are responsible for actually drafting the bill.

Before words are put to paper, a period of consultation occurs. Either a ‘Green’
Paper or a ‘White’ Paper is published and members of the public are invited
to comment on future bills using these papers as a basis for discussion and
contact with their MP if they feel that this is necessary.

What is the difference between a White and a Green Paper?

A Green Paper is an exploratory one that is designed to stimulate discussion
amongst a wide audience. A White Paper is a statement of where the government
wishes to go in the sense that it is fairly definite in what it thinks is
required. If the issue is very much an open one, a Green Paper usually comes
before a White Paper to allow for an expansive debate on the issue. One single
issue can have both a Green and a White Paper released on it so that the public
can have an insight into what the government wants but also has access to a
document that presents an across-the-board selection of arguments.

If the government want a bill to pass, it is in their interest to ensure that
all the areas that need to be analysed have been. Therefore, extensive
consultations are carried out to ensure that what the government wants, comes
into being. For a bill that is deemed by the government to be important, many
groups are consulted: experts, Treasury officials if there are major monetary
implications, trade union leaders especially, if there are employment issues at stake,
MP’s, trade organisations etc.

To allow for full public consultation, a draft bill might be published to
allow the public at large (and the Parliamentary opposition!) to see what the
effective final act might be. Prior to 1997, releasing a bill in draft form was
quite rare. However, since 1997, this has become more and more common. In one
sense, this process is seen as the government being more responsive to the
people and giving the people the opportunity of making the government
responsible to them rather than the other way round.

Only after a bill has been drafted and agreed on by ministers, does it go to
the House of Commons for its first reading.

After so much preparatory work, the bill that goes before the
House of
Commons cannot be considered a mere ‘rough draft’. It is a lot more than
this. Even at this seemingly early stage of its ‘life’, the bill is what the
government wants to become law. If a government has a large parliamentary
majority in the House, a bill, even on its first reading, frequently passes with
relative ease (assuming that it is not a controversial one) and with few, in
any, amendments to it.

The First Reading is the first time that a bill goes before the House itself.
The First Reading is, in fact, when a bill is introduced after which the bill is
then put into print. Though the title "First Reading" conjures up the
image of a big parliamentary event, it is really the opposite in that nothing
actually happens other than the fact a bill goes before Parliament. As the bill
is not in a printed format at this time, MP’s can do little about assessing
content etc. From this purely formal introduction, the bill then gets a Second
Reading.

By the time of the Second Reading, MP’s have access to the detail of the
bill and it is in the Second Reading that MP’s have the chance for a
wide-ranging discussion on a bill’s merits or otherwise. Usually, though not
exclusively, a parliamentary day is given over to a Second Reading, which
usually corresponds to about six hours of discussion. More controversial bills
have been known to be given three days of parliamentary time – about eighteen
hours.

Traditionally, a government minister opens a Second Reading while his/her
opposite number on the Opposition Benches replies. From here, backbench MP’s
join in the debate. When it comes to closing the Second Reading, the minister
concerned does this. The debate in the House in controlled by either the Speaker
of the Deputy Speaker. Controversial bills may proceed to a vote at a Second
Reading. It is almost certain that a government with a decent Parliamentary
majority will win this as the bill represents what that government wants and the
party whips would ensure that a smooth vote takes place. From the Second
Reading, the bill moves onto to the Committee Stage.

The Committee Stage is probably the most thorough examination of the bill.
This examination is done by a Standing Committee that is made up of 18 to 25 MP’s.
The number per political party is determined by each party’s strength in the
House of Commons. With a large parliamentary majority, the Labour government has
a sound representation on such committees. The Minister responsible for the bill
is on the committee along with junior ministers. The opposition minister is also
on the committee along with his/her junior ministers. There are two Whips on the
committee – one from the government and one that represents the opposition.
The other places on the committee are made up of MP’s from both sides of the
House. They are considered to have an expertise in the matter being discussed
and can bring such expertise to the detailed discussion that occurs at the
Committee Stage.

The number of times a Standing Committee meets is determined by the
importance of the bill. A major government bill may require a number of meetings
(between 10 and 12 is usual) over a six-week period. However, controversial
bills have taken up more time than this. A Standing Committee is chaired by a
senior backbencher from either side of the House. His/her task is to remain
impartial throughout the committee stage. Bills that are likely to take time due
to their controversial nature may have two chairs appointed – one from the
government and one from the Opposition.

What does a Standing Committee do?

A Standing Committee assesses and approves each clause of a bill.It does not discuss the overall purpose of a bill.Each member of a Standing Committee is allowed to propose an amendment to
clauses in the bill.

The government does not have to accept amendments, and despite the input of a
Standing Committee, a bill, after the Committee Stage may be the same as at the
time of the Second Reading. Governments with a large parliamentary majority and
with a disciplined Whip structure, can all but guarantee that its bill will be
voted for. However, a government may well accept amendments to a bill simply
because a Standing Committee may have suggested an improvement that the
government simply did not ‘see’. The power to do this rests with the
government and not with the Standing Committee. Some have argued that this
government power makes a Standing Committee and its work redundant.

However, this procedure is a fundamental part of the parliamentary set-up and
is seen as part of the whole democratic structure of Parliament and an insurance
against governments doing what they want to do. Standing Committees act as a
reservoir of expertise than can be used constructively by a government – if
only that it can discuss in clinical detail a bill and suggest changes that,
according to the Committee, will enhance the bill.

A government might accept minor changes to a bill. Major changes are a
different matter. These might only be forced on a government if sufficient
government backbenchers combine with the Opposition. In this scenario, the
government might be faced with the embarrassment of its bill being defeated in
the House. This would clearly undermine its authority. With the current huge
parliamentary majority of the Blair government in 2003, this is extremely
unlikely to occur.

On rare occasions, the Standing Committee stage might be expanded. This is
done when this examination of a bill is taken ‘on the floor’. This is when a
Committee of the Whole House is convened to give all MP’s the opportunity to
express their views on a bill. This happens rarely as it is a time-consuming
process. Major finance bill and proposed constitutional changes have led to
Committees of the Whole House being instigated in the past.

The whole committee stage is meant to be a thorough examination of a bill and
it is the longest part of the process. Once it has ended, the process moves on
to the Report Stage.

This stage is also known as ‘The Consideration’. This is a detailed
examination of the bill by all MP’s, including amendments if they have been
suggested at the Committee stage. New amendments can be introduced at this
stage. This is usually done by the government in response to amendments
suggested at the Committee stage. By doing this, the government can claim to
have listened to the proposed amendments to a bill. It can also claim to still
be in charge of the bill as it has proposed the amendments! The Report Stage can
last from 30 minutes to several days. From here, the bill returns for its Third
Reading.

The Third Reading is the final part of the debate regarding the bill within
the House of Commons. MP’s discuss the overall content of the amended bill.
From here the bill automatically moves onto the House of Lords.

Under its current structure, the Lords operate in broadly the same way as the
House of Commons. The First Reading in the Lords is, as in the Commons, a formal
introduction. A major debate on the bill occurs at the Second Reading. The Lords
continue to follow the pattern of the Commons with a Committee Stage, followed
by the Report Stage and then a concluding Third Reading.

However, though there are many similarities in the way both Houses proceed
with regards to the way bills are passed, there are also a number of important
differences.

The Lords Committee Stage is usually held on the floor of the Lords itself.
In this way, any peer may put forward amendments and comment about the bill.Amendments can be made in the Lords at the Third Reading. This is usually
done to clarify any amendments the government has agreed to make to its bill.

If the bill is voted for in the Lords, it is immediately sent for Royal
Assent. However, if any amendments have been made in the Lords, the bill is
returned to the Commons which debates each amendment the Lords have made. The
Commons can:

Accept the amendmentAmend the Lords amendmentCompletely replace a Lords amendment with one of its ownReject a Lords amendment.

If any of the last three are done in the Commons, the bill returns to the
Lords with an explanation as to why the government has taken the course of
action it has. This is a ‘statement of reasons’. The Lords can accept this
and pass the bill. However, it can also reject the ‘statement of reasons’.
When this happens, the amendments concerned (and therefore the bill itself) goes
to and from the Commons and Lords until an acceptable compromise is reached. If
both Houses fail to agree on their differences, the bill dies. This is an
extremely rare event and has only happened on very infrequent occasions since
1945.

There are two major restrictions on the Lords ability to kill of a bill.

1) The Lords may not delay a bill for more than one parliamentary session. A
bill lost in the Lords in one session but then passed by the Commons in the
next parliamentary session, would automatically receive the Royal Assent
regardless of whether the Lords opposed it in that session.

2) The Lords does not deal with any "Money Bills". These pass
through the Lords without discussion.

This theoretical ability of the Lords to kill off a bill or even to hinder
its passing has highlighted a major constitutional issue.

To some, the Lords acts as an insurance against an over-dominant government
based in the Commons. Those in the Lords are usually older than MP’s and have
the worldly experience (usually of politics) to make a positive input into the
making and creating of new laws. Their experience is usually greater than the
majority of MPs’ in the Commons and their perceived wisdom is a much-needed
stabilising factor in British politics.

To others, the Lords are an unelected and, therefore, an undemocratic relic
from another time that undermine the whole concept of representative
democracy.
If an elected government, so the argument goes, decides to pursue a certain
policy, an electoral victory gives it the right to do so – and the Lords have
no right to interfere in this process.

The current projected reform of the Lords is still being considered. In
February 2003, Tony Blair argued that a fully appointed Lords would allow a
cross-section of experts to be appointed to the second chamber. Such experts
would offer a serious scrutiny of government bills and society as a whole would
only benefit from this. This approach has been soundly criticised by many who
argue that an appointed Lords would simply pass whatever the government wanted
to be passed and would offer no scrutiny whatsoever to government bills. One of
the major critics of an appointed Lords was the then Leader of the House, Robin Cook,
a member of the Cabinet, who was
to resign over the government's decision to attack Iraq.

After the First Reading, Second Reading, Committee Stage and Third Reading in
the Commons and the input by the Lords, a bill (if it has passed through all the
stages) is ready for the Royal Assent.

In this process, the monarch formally signifies assent to the bill so that it
becomes an act and part of the law of the land. The Queen uses Norman French as
part of tradition – "La Reyne le veult" ("The Queen wishes
it").
The last time the monarch refused to give Royal Assent was in 1707 with Queen
Anne. It is all but impossible to imagine a situation whereby the Queen would
refuse to give Royal Assent to a bill that has gone through such a thorough
examination. Such a refusal would spark off a major constitutional crisis.

An act usually has a date or dates in its text as to when it will be
implemented (or when parts of it will be implemented if it is a multi-layered
act). Some acts have a Commencement Order in them to activate it, or parts of
it. The implementation of that act means that it is part of the law of the land
from that date.

MLA Citation/Reference

"How laws are made in Great Britain". HistoryLearningSite.co.uk. 2014. Web.